KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS

W

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

swerve said:
Look at the customers . . . both are 787 buyers needing to fill gaps caused by late delivery of their 787s. I wouldn't be surprised if there are buy back clauses in those contracts. I'm sure there's some element of compensation.

I think the last real 767 sale was about 2 years ago*. The line will almost certainly close when current orders are fulfilled, without the KC-X.

A bit O/T, but - a cousin of my partner is an ANA senior pilot, & has been getting very frustrated. He's supposed to be the first ANA 787 pilot. :D Ah well, he should get his hands on one this year (at last!), if only for test flights alongside a Boeing pilot.

*[Edit] I checked. Two were sold for 767 business/VIP use in December 2008. There are no airline customers since February 2007 which haven't had to fill gaps caused by 787 delays. There were no orders from March 2007 to July 2008. In 2007, LAN bought 3 in January, & in February UPS (27) & DHL (6) bought some cargo 767s.

I think this confirms that the 767 has no commercial future. It stopped selling three years ago.
Click to expand...
Just thought I state the order list.

21-Dec-2009 All Nippon Airways 5x 767-300ER
30-Jun-2009 Unidentified Customer(s) 2x 767-300ER
22-Dec-2008 Business Jet / VIP Customer(s) 1x 767-400ER
10-Nov-2008 LAN Airlines 4x 767-300ER
31-Oct-2008 Uzbekistan Airways 4x 767-300ER
25-Sep-2008 All Nippon Airways 4x 767-300ER
17-Sep-2008 JAL International 9x 767-300ER
04-Aug-2008 Azerbaijan Airlines 2x 767-300ER
23-Feb-2007 DHL International 6x 767-300F
15-Feb-2007 UPS 27x 767-300F
31-Jan-2007 LAN Airlines 3x 767-300ER

Having stated the above, I agree with the overall view that the aircraft has little commercial future. But that's different from saying there have been no "sales" or "orders". There are like 50 customers for the 787... Selling at a discount does not make a product non-commercial or orders becoming unreal. One can make an argument that the A-330 subsidies make it equally a discounted plane that can't compete without those subsidies (according to WTO, applies to every airbus model).

Having no commercial future for the 767 should be evident when boeing designed the 787. The 787 is a disaster from a delivery pov. Having a tanker based on a design that hasn't delivered would be strange (but boeing would be more than happy to sell). Your cousin's frustration is understandable.

The A-380, though delivering, isn't that much better either. Extra e3.5b subsidised A-400M, anyone?

This sums it up.
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/t...ong-but-may-reveal-a-hidden-agenda?a=1&c=1171
 
F

Falstaff

New Member
weasel1962 said:
Just thought I state the order list.
Having stated the above, I agree with the overall view that the aircraft has little commercial future. But that's different from saying there have been no "sales" or "orders". There are like 50 customers for the 787... Selling at a discount does not make a product non-commercial or orders becoming unreal.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't know what the problem is when stating that the 767 is at the end of it's sconomical lifecycle. In the first place that's a non-judgemental statement. It too reflects Boeings own reasoning: the 767 isn't promoted actively to the civilian passenger sector any more. It has already started in its second life as freighter plane and for military use, both sectors to which different economical standards apply than to the civilian passenger sector. I didn't say it's a bad plane, mind you.
Furthermore saying "it doesn't sell" reflects exactly this and doesn't mean no orders at all. It just has a typical sales curve over its product life cycle and the PLC is about to end, that's all.

weasel1962 said:
One can make an argument that the A-330 subsidies make it equally a discounted plane that can't compete without those subsidies (according to WTO, applies to every airbus model).
Click to expand...
Oh my god, not that silly argument again. Funny though that all the "buy american no matter what" people conveniantly ignore that the WTO also critisised American procedures of heavily cross-subsidising with military programs.
One might say that the 767 can't compete without massive political intervention. Oh. I just wanted to tease you, but wait... it's true. There you are.

weasel1962 said:
Having no commercial future for the 767 should be evident when boeing designed the 787. The 787 is a disaster from a delivery pov. Having a tanker based on a design that hasn't delivered would be strange (but boeing would be more than happy to sell). Your cousin's frustration is understandable.
Click to expand...
The 787 is a techological leap forward and it's a challenge to manage a product that is such a complex one not only technologically but also in tearms of production infrastructure. Back in 2005 the aviation professor at my university predicted what would happen with the program- it's a common problem in the aviation industry these days.
And again, no, it is simply wrong. Boeing would not be happy to sell 787 tankers at this point, how many times do I have to repeat? Perhaps in 10-15 years, but not now. Don't you get it? Talk to Boing staff, they will tell you the same they told me.

fretburner said:
Let me ask you this, "technology push" is not "market push"?
Click to expand...
Nope. I'll try to make it simple:
Technology push: "Hey customer, we have got a technologically superior (compared to e.g. industry standard) product, you need this because it's better!"
Market push: "Hey customer, we have got an average product, you need this because we're Boeing (because on behalf of our commercial weight, brand name, etc. we'll make it a standard in the industry)."
 
F

fretburner

Banned Member
Falstaff said:
Nope. I'll try to make it simple:
Technology push: "Hey customer, we have got a technologically superior (compared to e.g. industry standard) product, you need this because it's better!"
Market push: "Hey customer, we have got an average product, you need this because we're Boeing (because on behalf of our commercial weight, brand name, etc. we'll make it a standard in the industry)."
Click to expand...
I do understand "technology-push". What I'm saying is that "technology-push" is a subset of "market-push". Besides, what good is your "technology" if it is without a market?

And nice try again in trying to twist the definition of "technology-push" and plugging in Boeing's name. Because the "superiority" of a technology is relative. To give you a very simple example, try this: Is bigger always better?
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
weasel1962 said:
Just thought I state the order list.

21-Dec-2009 All Nippon Airways 5x 767-300ER
30-Jun-2009 Unidentified Customer(s) 2x 767-300ER
22-Dec-2008 Business Jet / VIP Customer(s) 1x 767-400ER
10-Nov-2008 LAN Airlines 4x 767-300ER
31-Oct-2008 Uzbekistan Airways 4x 767-300ER
25-Sep-2008 All Nippon Airways 4x 767-300ER
17-Sep-2008 JAL International 9x 767-300ER
04-Aug-2008 Azerbaijan Airlines 2x 767-300ER
23-Feb-2007 DHL International 6x 767-300F
15-Feb-2007 UPS 27x 767-300F
31-Jan-2007 LAN Airlines 3x 767-300ER

Having stated the above, I agree with the overall view that the aircraft has little commercial future. But that's different from saying there have been no "sales" or "orders". There are like 50 customers for the 787... Selling at a discount does not make a product non-commercial or orders becoming unreal. One can make an argument that the A-330 subsidies make it equally a discounted plane that can't compete without those subsidies (according to WTO, applies to every airbus model).
Click to expand...
Oh dear.
First, let's deal with the pure nonsense bit of your post: A330 is very profitable. It is not subsidised, not by a single penny or euro cent. The countries that put up finance for the development cost have had every penny repaid, & are continuing to get money for every one sold. Their return on their initial investment has been significantly better than if they'd lent Airbus the money on normal commercial terms. If you think that's a subsidy, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you . . . .

I did not say there have been no sales, or no orders. I pointed out - correctly - that with the possible exception of two VIP models, every sale in the last three years has been to fill a gap caused by late delivery of the 787, & will therefore almost certainly have been a loss-making sale for Boeing, part of a compensation package for the 787 delays. It's like the car dealer who gives you a courtesy car to use while he fixes the faults in your new car. It's a cost to him, not a profitable hire. It isn't the same as a discounted but still profitable (when one counts in manufacturer incentives, after sales parts sales, etc) sale.

As pointed out by others, even Boeing doesn't think it's worth trying to sell the 767 any more - except the KC-X. Even other possible 767 tanker sales I've heard of are based on conversions of used aircraft.
 
METEORSWARM

METEORSWARM

New Member
Cantwell praises the 767 air frame selected by Boeing for the tanker competition



U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said the 767 air frame selected by Boeing for the tanker competition will be “ready for the fight from day one.” Cantwell’s comments came as Boeing announced its selection of the mid-sized 767 as the air frame it will offer the U.S. military in the competition to build mid-air refueling aircraft. Yesterday, in a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Cantwell said an illegal European government subsidy for a potential competing aircraft in the tanker competition represents an unfair advantage that could skew the competition. In an exchange with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Cantwell said U.S. workers and businesses would be at a disadvantage in the Pentagon competition if the European Union’s subsidy of the Airbus platform is allowed to stand.

“People are concerned that if that illegal subsidy continues, then basically it’s putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage,” Cantwell told Kirk. The European defense consortium, EADS, “can make the plane as cheap as they want,” Cantwell continued. “They can make the bottom line as cheap as they want because the [European] governments are continuing to bail them out.”
EADS and Northrop Grumman are expected to propose building the KC-45 tanker, a larger aircraft that Cantwell said would carry hidden extra costs, including the need to enlarge runways and ramp facilities at military bases around the world. The platform for the Northrop/EADS tanker is based on a civilian Airbus plane developed with the help of European government subsidies. Kirk told Cantwell that the interim decision regarding a U.S. complaint about unfair competition stemming from the subsidies is expected to be finalized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) within a few weeks.

Cantwell hailed today’s announcement by Boeing. The mid-sized 767 will enable the U.S. Air Force to get more tankers to more bases around the world, providing support for U.S. military aircraft closer to the fight. Boeing’s proven track record building the tanker will ensure the new Air Force fleet’s success. Boeing has designed, built and supported more than 2,000 tankers over the past 60 years.

“The 767 is smaller and more agile in combat situations and therefore more survivable for our fighting men and women,” Cantwell said. “Because Boeing is already building the military version of the aircraft, a 767-based tanker fleet will be ready to fight from day one.”
 
F

Firn

Active Member
METEORSWARM said:
Cantwell praises the 767 air frame selected by Boeing for the tanker competition



U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said the 767 air frame selected by Boeing for the tanker competition will be “ready for the fight from day one.” Cantwell’s comments came as Boeing announced its selection of the mid-sized 767 as the air frame it will offer the U.S. military in the competition to build mid-air refueling aircraft. Yesterday, in a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Cantwell said an illegal European government subsidy for a potential competing aircraft in the tanker competition represents an unfair advantage that could skew the competition. In an exchange with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Cantwell said U.S. workers and businesses would be at a disadvantage in the Pentagon competition if the European Union’s subsidy of the Airbus platform is allowed to stand.

“People are concerned that if that illegal subsidy continues, then basically it’s putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage,” Cantwell told Kirk. The European defense consortium, EADS, “can make the plane as cheap as they want,” Cantwell continued. “[UT]hey can make the bottom line as cheap as they want because the [European] governments are continuing to bail them out.” [/U]

EADS and Northrop Grumman are expected to propose building the KC-45 tanker, a larger aircraft that Cantwell said would carry hidden extra costs, including the need to enlarge runways and ramp facilities at military bases around the world. The platform for the Northrop/EADS tanker is based on a civilian Airbus plane developed with the help of European government subsidies. Kirk told Cantwell that the interim decision regarding a U.S. complaint about unfair competition stemming from the subsidies is expected to be finalized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) within a few weeks.

Cantwell hailed today’s announcement by Boeing. The mid-sized 767 will enable the U.S. Air Force to get more tankers to more bases around the world, providing support for U.S. military aircraft closer to the fight. Boeing’s proven track record building the tanker will ensure the new Air Force fleet’s success. Boeing has designed, built and supported more than 2,000 tankers over the past 60 years.

“The 767 is smaller and more agile in combat situations and therefore more survivable for our fighting men and women,” Cantwell said. “Because Boeing is already building the military version of the aircraft, a 767-based tanker fleet will be ready to fight from day one.”
Click to expand...
:D

I simply love this statement. The writer did try hard to push things like "Boing tankers are ready to fight" or "is smaller and more agile in combat situations and therefore more survivable". Sounds like the tanker is going to be a true heroic all-American fighter plane.

But even better are phrases like: “T[hey can make the bottom line as cheap as they want because the [European] governments are continuing to bail them out.” , especially considering the huge and repeated American industrial bail-outs. GM anyone? :D


Boeing cannot criticize the government subsidies that Airbus receives for two fundamental reasons. First, all major commercial aircraft companies receive government subsidies. Second, Boeing received direct government subsidies on the 787 aircraft from the state of Washington ($3.2 billion equates to $3.2 million per production worker) and $1.6 billion indirect Japanese government subsidies from its Japanese partners.
Click to expand...
Talk about being blind on one eye, I just love politics ;)


Firn
 
P

peterfresno

New Member
Does anyone in the tanker world have an opinion / understanding of the real limitations that might be imposed by the larger airframe? I can see the point of the smaller airframe being more flexible and taking less ramp space but I have no idea if that matters.

I also wondered how often the KC-10 extenders dispense their full fuel load during a normal mission set? Any informed decision outside of the PR departments would be enlightening.

It would be great to hear from some users.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
I don't think the EU's threat of a trade war with the US is going to have any effect on the outcome. With a Democratic Congress and White House, Boeing is going to win the tanker contract if only for political reasons. Washington state has voted Democratic for years, with a strong aviation union while at the same time Chicago is now Boeing's HQ.

As I noted before, while I prefer the Airbus tanker, the cheaper and slightly smaller Boeing tanker met every requirement of the tender. By US law Boeing should win the contract. The tender requirements were exact, and any extra capabilities isn't or shouldn't be considered. It isn't the case of the better aircraft wins, its a matter of whether the Boeing aircraft with the lower bid met every specification of the tender.

Boeing won the bid. Democrats are in power. The airplane meets the tender's specifications. Three strikes, and you're out. Airbuses best chances were with the Republicans being in power.
 
F

Firn

Active Member
Sea Toby said:
I don't think the EU's threat of a trade war with the US is going to have any effect on the outcome. With a Democratic Congress and White House, Boeing is going to win the tanker contract if only for political reasons. Washington state has voted Democratic for years, with a strong aviation union while at the same time Chicago is now Boeing's HQ.

As I noted before, while I prefer the Airbus tanker, the cheaper and slightly smaller Boeing tanker met every requirement of the tender. By US law Boeing should win the contract. The tender requirements were exact, and any extra capabilities isn't or shouldn't be considered. It isn't the case of the better aircraft wins, its a matter of whether the Boeing aircraft with the lower bid met every specification of the tender.
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up and Swerve did rightly point out the from which corner the statement of the dear U.S Senator comes from.

This purchase won't break the US airforce, but there remain quite a lot of understandable doubts if it really got the best deal for the money.


Firn
 
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The German side of it isn't really publicized all that much in anglophone media.

German economics minister Brüderle (FDP) has started some similar rhetorics to Sarkozy. The Aerospace Coordinator of the German government, Hintze, has openly called on the US government to "rethink their approach". The parliament faction leader of the CDU, Fuchs, has said he's "appalled" by the US behaviour.

The economic politics speaker of the CDU government majority partner, Pfeiffer (along with his shadow version from the SPD, Duin, and the government minority economics speaker from the FDP, Friedhoff), effectively all used the same rhetorics as French officials, calling the US decision "scandalous".

And Bernhard Stiedl, who sits on the EADS board and is the premier defence technology specialist within the IG Metall union (Germany's biggest union) has voiced some stuff along the lines of "Europe needing to rethink its defense procurement in light of this" - and has also attacked the German and French governments for not doing enough to push the EADS bid onto the US government.
 
M

moahunter

Banned Member
Sea Toby said:
Boeing won the bid. Democrats are in power. The airplane meets the tender's specifications. Three strikes, and you're out. Airbuses best chances were with the Republicans being in power.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Boeing is prefered by the Democrats, who are more "buy American" and also, Washington state is a Democrat state.
 
W

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program (NYSE:NOC)

"We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America's service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly. "

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Did the "we" include EADS?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In a short 12 days later....

EADS North America - Tanker Activity Update

An important prerequisite for our consideration of entry into this competition will be a significant extension to the period within which to prepare and submit a proposal. EADS welcomes the DoD’s recent statement which indicated a willingness to extend the timeframe.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
You beat me to it. By 29 minutes no less. Nice.

Anyways, when I saw it I was like O.O too.... but then the details apparently put the UAC in cooperation with an un-named American company. In other words, they may end up simply supplying parts, or maybe airframes, with another company putting together the final stuff.

Then again, after the NATO renting An-124s to supply the mission in Afghan, anything's possible.

http://lenta.ru/news/2010/03/20/oak/
 
W

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

Smart move by Ilyushin with benefits to DoD.

EADS can no longer play the sole source contract card. I see this as yet another blow to EADS. Further, Europe's argument of restrictive US procurement practices runs hollow when even Russia can compete.

Politically, it sends a signal just how far detente between US and Russia has come. From commie enemy to potential supplier.

Even if the Il-96 has zero chance of success of getting the contract, DoD could reciprocate or be forced to acknowledge/validate certain features that could affect other comps eg in India/China where image matters. The prestige of even able to compete in this project already boosts the image of the company. Its a sign of growing confidence in Russia of its own product's international marketability.

At the same time, the russkis can have a direct first hand experience with a procurement process that they don't need to spy upon and possibly adopt best practices within Russia.

btw, doesn't one of the models of the Il-96 operate with PW engines? :)

The expected Boeing win will go down well with the populace as "beating" the commies, yet another time (on US soil), whilst politically, the russkis can argue that they're good enough to take the battle to US home ground. Win-win.
 
P

plasmahawk

Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top